corporate america is thriving

Discussion in 'IntroSpectrum' started by Radium, Jun 12, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Your Idol

    Your Idol ♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠

    Joined:
    May 5, 2001
    Messages:
    12,045
    To believe the recession is manufactured is preposterous. Companies making a profit isn't the issue when pointing out fewer people have jobs and wages are stagnant. We are lucky and we have the means to buy many products even though we're seeing hard times. It's hard to take an article seriously when they clearly exhibit the lack of any really grasp on economics. Globalization was alive and breathing before Frank-Dodd and the other destructive forces causing the recession.

    Creating incentives for business to stay in America absolutely helps us. The debate on how to do this is a bit perplexing. Some people believe we need to regulate them more (depending on the topic I'm not really adverse to all of it), make more stringent policies on protecting the environment, and increase taxes on their earnings yet they don't understand why these companies continue to outsource American workers. The only viable solution I have seen is something Canada has done which is eliminate all tax breaks and credits while significantly reducing the overall tax percentage.
    test
  2. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    these are ok points. quickly theres 1 big thing i dont think this summary considers though. a big thing is that the trend of outsourcing is larger than just manufacturing ex: today graphic designers must compete globally instead of just domestically w other graphic designers. this ultimately means graphic designers from america (or whererever) must compete with graphic designers globally who can do their work at wages that would never be feasible for anyone living in america. for example, the art part that you see when you watch the simpons is made in s korea. quickly googling any currency converter on the web can show you pretty viscerally why that happens. by this same system, any work that can be similarly preformed globally ends up ultimately displacing a whole bunch of workers domestically. outsourcing is not just limited to physical based work but information based work too. sir bustalot who posts here went to school for, and used to work as, an animator. i think he now he pours concrete.

    next i just want to ask: what is your unemployment rate in england and average debt? these are important things to know because unemployment and debt are huge problems in america PressTV - US Fed frets over unemployment, debt as many are unemplyed/underemplyed and in huge debt despite america still being the 2nd largest manufacturer in the world China to become world's top manufacturer, ending America's 110-year reign | Mail Online in contrast to england's manufacturing being 7th largest

    so something is not in sync. i need info from you to explain england's unemplyment and debt. and i ask you instead of googling because its hard to really get a feeling for that straight from data and numbers and also its sort of hazy to correctly guage true unemployment rate and just how much debt people have. there are many people who are employed, but underployed; have simply given up looking for work; or have yet to enter into the workforce whatsoever because they are young. teenage unemployemt for example is at an all time high, at 27% Economy Watch - Teen unemployment hits all-time highs with black teenager unemployment at a shocking 49% African American Teen Unemployment Rate at a 25 Year High | LA Progressive

    they could really use some jobs. for them theres not even very much hope going forward as they must enter into debt just to have things like a car, a home, an education... and lack of jobs affects their ability to even bite the bullet and effectively go do that. i hope you would imagine outsourcing jobs away to be a hard knock on people like that.

    well anyway my point is that there are alot of people that have become displaced. outsourcing i believe does play a role, though i admit its not the only thing. things like (you talked about this) technology improving eliminates some jobs (self check out lines for example) and another huge factor is that when the recession hit in america it forced many businesses to downsize in response. this actually turned out bad (exccept for the businesses) because it forced/taught them to do more with less. so now workers must do more work while getting paid less basically.

    this all is a paradox. that was the whole point of this thread and that link. i wasnt trying to make this about outsourcing so much (i guess i should have worded the 1rst post better) but i was trying ask if we make less wages now in america, have more unemplyment and are more underemployed, have more debt: How can corporations actually be thriving?

    thats a gigantic question with really big implications. as i understand it, the whole premise of a capitalist economy is that its ultimately a symbiotic relationship between producer and consumer eg producer hires workers to make goods and pays these workers so that they may ultimately spend back that money to purchase the goods produced. so if we now have way less of an ability to consume the goods the producers make, how and where are they actually making any money?

    finally, america at its most prosperous when it was its most domestic. well i guess more accurately i should say thats when it had its largest middle class and equal disvtribution of wealth. great wealth seems to still exist now, but not in the middle class. concurrently, america now is at its most globalized. globalization does not have a precedence (it shows even the opposite so far) for helping that middle class.
    test
  3. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    sigh your idol yourae missing the whole point all over again. if corporations are thriving, but we arent, how and where are they making any money? this success has to be coming from somwhere if not us.

    and they have success with this system that is creating these effects, whats the incentive to then actually change anything?
    test
  4. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    well, i'm not sure if its necessarily meant to allow for more producers. rather that the means of production is spread more evenly. in the most basic sense this would mean a distribution of land to the farmer, tools to the mechanic, computers to the web design firm, etc. in the case of henry george's idea, the land would not be forcibly redistributed but rather the tax structure would make it unprofitable for companies to hold large portions of unused land, especially valuable land, which would theoretically cause them to sell the land to others who would in turn put it to use. meanwhile the fruits of ones own labor would not be taxed so that people are encouraged to utilize their land or business space to increase production.

    in the case of larger operations that can't be replicated on an individual scale the only real model that compares is the co-op that was highlighted in the article. those companies are sort of like corporations except the power structure is arranged to give the workers more say in policy decisions like wage etc.

    as for how can some mom and pop store compete with walmart in terms of the price of socks, they can't. another element of these types of operations is that consumers opt for a higher price with the knowledge that they are supporting ethical business practices, sort of like how organic and fair trade products sell for a mark up while walmart sells the same basic quality of food and/or clothes for a much lower price.

    one suggestion to cut down on the price difference between the two is to end the corporate welfare that helps them keep their prices so low. if you want to take it a step further than that, companies could be taxed additionally for imported goods to cut down on the profitability of using outsourced labor, but that comes with a possible cost to the economy as mentioned above.

    at the end of the day the concept of the co-op as opposed to the corporation is something that requires the cooperation of not only the producers but the consumers as well. not all co-op members are actually hired to work in these companies, so there is some precedent to the idea that people will pay a little more to support what they consider to be a positive influence in the way people do business. sadly, most people will indeed opt for the lower prices of walmart regardless of what their business practices are, which makes your question a tough one to answer.
    test
  5. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    especially in a recession

    i think it becomes increasingly hard to ask people to throw around any extra money for things. that might be the biggest effect of the recession if its ultimately sustained as the new default model going forward for the economy: a whole bunch of different small businesses that provide some sort of specialized product (they make their own socks) get eliminated because people are no longer able to select those products over the cheaper corporate products. thus corporations ultimately become more generalized and all money has to basically go through them, as they start taking up more space in the economy. i think thats basically how it works in most third world countries where you have a small group of mega corporations that produce everything.
    test
  6. Your Idol

    Your Idol ♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠

    Joined:
    May 5, 2001
    Messages:
    12,045
    Demand is down that is a fact. Certain companies making a profit really means nothing in the grand scheme of things considering even those who would be considered lower class still buy food and other "necessities" made by these companies that basically everyone purchases. The money they make isn't effecting your life unless you work for that company or you're invested in it. Until more people are actually willing to spend their savings instead of waiting for this administration and the FED to do one wacky thing after the next and see how it shakes out you won't see much change for the better.
    test
  7. SAMARA

    SAMARA truth is a sword

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2002
    Messages:
    1,151
    wow.

    I think the pertinent part of the arguement that is missing is - money.

    Seldom are corporations motivated to act without this key driver nor is it done for social good. Social good is not the responsibility of a business, though we want to believe otherwise. Historically it does not seem this way.

    Why foreign markets? Very simple, with the downturn in Europe and the consolidation of European debt thus forming the EURO, the market downturn felt in North America is much more significant since much of Asia is backed by the USdollar. With China restricting market entrants and deflating their currency - the only other way to gain in foreign markets is through government contracting thus obtaining foreign government funding financed from foreign aid, received from other foreign bodies - called, you pocket.

    So you can no longer buy products.

    But you will always pay - TAXES.

    All the other conversations are creating excuses for why there is no investment in your own country. Money that is moved a couple of times always seem to get thinner.
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)